Ever wonder what the guests at your big day REALLY thought of your dress, the reception venue, or the string quartet over-dramatizing every moment of your saunter down the aisle? Welcome to the only online site ballsy enough to out the bad decisions that may land you a divorce. You did? You shouldn't have.
I recently read that bridal designer Alfred Angelo was inspired by our shady economic times (isn't that over yet?) and created a line of wedding gowns for the bride on a budget, appropriately called "Recessionista".
Although it took me awhile to get over the atrocious choice of name, I thought that this was a great idea! Not every bride can afford a ridiculously expensive dress, but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be able to get a dress from a renowned (albeit tacky) (sorry) bridal designer.
So I checked out the site and, as expected, the dresses were simple - but not horrible. This one in particular is pretty. The shape of the dress is interesting, and the jeweled detail is delicate and appropriate. Obviously not the most beautiful gown in the world, but definitely worth the price tag (under 599$). We've all seen much worse, for much more.
But then, I saw THIS.
Pants.
CHIFFON pants.
What?????
Just because you are on a budget does not mean that you should be forced to wear horrible pants on your wedding day!
Is there seriously a market for pants-wearing brides? Unless you're getting married and then rushing off to work, there is no reason for you to wear pants on your wedding!
And the best part is that this "outfit" falls under the same price range as the dress above.
Appropriately, I found a link to this video through the best man (to my maid of honour) at my sister's wedding last July, 2008, and I couldn't resist posting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0DmtmmFEVo
What did we learn on the show tonight, WBers? 1) Make your best man pass a physical coordination test before appointing him to this crucial role. 2) Don't have a poolside wedding. 3) Wear water-proof mascara.
What's almost as good as the video itself is the commentary that follows.
For some reason, Harper's Bazaar thought it would be a good idea to put Kate Hudson in this for their most recent edition:
Wow.
Is that a FAT BULGE escaping from the sleeve near the armpit? A FAT BULGE? On KATE HUDSON? Either my eyes deceive me, or this is actually the world's worst cut sleeve.
The shoes, however, I love. What I enjoy even more than the shoes: the newspaper wrapped around her bouquets. Both of them. How's that for an "urban wedding"?
Grad students. We're certainly a strange bunch. We tend to resist the norm, reject convention, and do things "on our own terms" within our (very meager) budgets. That's not, of course, to say that our weddings are all devoid of sentimentality or fanfare. We like details just as much as the next guy, but we're more particular (and perhaps intellectually elitist) about the ones we choose to emphasise on our big day.
Fair enough. We weren't all made perfect.
One thing we (female) like to do is to wear things that, while still very appropriate for civil ceremonies (because we are all heathens who don't believe in God and hate the idea of established religion, anyway, so would NEVER get married in Church), toy with expectation. Because our men tend to be ineffectual pushovers with mommy complexes, we like to keep them in standard (but always comfortable - let's face it: getting them out of shorts was already miraculous enough) attire:
We like to favour details that are in line with our academic interests. For the Art Historians among us, this means getting married in what was once ostensibly an old chapel covered floor to ceiling in affreschi, and choosing truly fantastical headpieces, genuine vintage jewelry, and intricate - but not overly so - dresses and purses nothing if not a perfect match with our delightfully playful footwear (not to mention our man's tie):
Aren't we just cute as buttons?
Our friends are, too. We in the humanities are an aesthetic bunch, so it's only natural that our guests would show up to our counter-culture nuptials in style:
And that they would stick around afterward for a very tasteful, even if small and modest, reception:
But when our parents leave is when the real fun begins. Our mothers, they tried to tell us that changing into your playclothes and having a party in a park is something that you do for your tenth birthday, and NOT for what many consider to be the most important day of your life (after your dissertation defense). They tried to tell us that a wedding was neither a sagra nor a picnic.
They offered to pay for a proper wedding cake.
They tried, but we wouldn't listen.
Of course, we didn't want to go against their wishes ... we are too riddled by inferiority complexes and Variants of Guilt. Instead, we just hired this guy to usher them out before the real festivities began.
Bring on the vino ... we've just pledged our eternal commitment to each other in a wildly liberal, completely secular, and therefore undeniably off-beat way. It's time to celebrate!
There's just something about those Kardashian sisters...
...that makes me want to rip out my eyeballs.
Maybe it's because they all seem to truly hate each other?
Maybe it's because The Tall One suddenly decided to get married after dating some guy for five minutes and everyone is supposed to care?
Maybe it's because The Pregnant One can't stop talking about how fat she is?
Maybe it's because The "Famous" One suddenly thinks she's an entrepreneur, when really the only thing she's known for is her ass?
Either way, I just can't get over this picture. It's not that I hate the Vera Wang dress. It's ok, I guess. A little predictable, if anything. And it kinda looks like the top was made out of folded napkins. But I just HATE that hair. It is way too severe and long and wavy. Why would you leave all that hair falling over your shoulders and then place that awful veil on top of it all? It's just too much going on up there. Not to mention the fact that it draws unwanted attention to that smug look on her face.
Don't get too cocky, Tall One. I give you and hubby 4 months. Tops.
Ps. Um, "Famous" One? Hi. You know, going up a size wouldn't have hurt. No one needs to know.
definition: an idiomatic expression used to describe writing that is superfluously ornate, showy, obscure, or garish.
These purple dresses exhibit at least two of the above four qualities.
Kudos to the bride for letting her MOH get creative with her gown (within the confines of the palette). The bridesmaids' dresses, however, are a little more questionable. They *might* have worked had they been short and of a less offensive hue, and had everyone's hair been swept into a classy but contemporary up-do. Of particularly heinous note: bridesmaid on the far left, who chose a two-bit chunky headpiece in the EXACT same fabric and colour as her dress. Fail.
Also, are we the ONLY ones who think that near-matching your bridesmaids' bouquets to their dresses is a bad idea? This is the THIRD wedding we've seen in recent history with solid purple-on-purple bouquet to dress action. What gives, and why does it give in monochrome?
Think it over, future brides, lest your weddings fall short of "regal."
